Aspiring writers struggle with lots of things. As an article in the Globe and Mail noted recently, it's a whole lot more fun to read a book than it is to write one—even if everybody these days seems to be working on one. And of course, the folks not writing that Next Great Novel are writing the Next Great Movie, so there's a whole lot of writing going on out there.
One of the fundamental challenges in fiction—be it in a script or a novel—lies in creating compelling, realistic characters. One of the quick criticisms directed at the work of aspiring writers (myself included!) is that the characters seem stiff and unnatural, or that they appear to be props largely serving the needs of the plot—in essence, that they don't act in a consistent fashion. In one scene, they'll be strong and tough, but in another they'll be weepy—and there won’t be any real explanation for the change in characterization, other than the fact that the author thought they needed to act that way in the particular scene. That just doesn't cut it, because characters are supposed to seem like real people, and so as writers, we're supposed to establish a character and then explore how that person would act in certain situations, rather than somewhat arbitrarily altering their reactions from scene to scene.
For example, James Lee Burke's Dave Robicheaux is a fascinating character, nuanced and full of history. Robicheaux is a detective in the Louisiana bayou, and his adventures are richly layered with the area's sense of history as well as Robicheaux's own personal history, recurring dreams, and nature. His responses to certain situations are consistent: as a reader, you know how Robicheaux will react to certain provocations. If his reactions vary, Burke is careful to document why. It simply isn't possible to create a "random" character, or have a person act randomly without some sort of reasonable explanation.
Which is where Marisa D'Vari's new book Creating Characters hopes to help. D'Vari is a former studio executive and current story consultant who developed what she calls the More-Personality System to give screenwriters (and other writers as well) the ability to dig more deeply into the personalities of their characters. The purpose is to try and "capture" the personality traits of a character, and be able to establish their mental fixations, unconscious desires, and even defense mechanisms, in order to build more "authentic" characters.
D'Vari's system is based in part on research into the history of personality "typecasting," starting with the Ennegram, an ancient personality forecasting system believed to originate in ancient Greece or the Middle East some 3,000 years ago. She also culls from Hippocrates' four temperament styles (the choleric, the sanguine, the phlegmatic, and the melancholy), Carl Jung's personality types (as well as his notion of the "collective unconscious"), the Myers-Briggs personality test, and the DISC method of personality typing, to create what she calls the More-Personality System.
In the More-Personality System, characters fall into four basic categories: Mover (brash, result-driven); Observer (factual, focused on detail, often insecure); Relater (encourages, motivates others, service-oriented); or Energizer (storyteller, confident, charming). D'Vari has created a simple "Quiz" to help writers decipher how best to describe a particular character. She then provides a detailed description of each character category, and offers insights into how they might act and how others might perceive them. For example:
Movers are usually not immediately likeable. They don’t try to charm or take pains to be pleasant. In fact, their blunt manner can put people off.
D'Vari also demonstrates how each of the character types might interact with a romantic interest from one of the other groups and how to "maximize conflict" through an understanding of personality types. (The essence of a story being about characters in conflict of some sort, maximizing the conflict is arguably a good thing.) As she suggests, the "Mover/Energizer" relationships are frequently the most combustible, typified by "incredible passion that often leads to violence." It is her belief that writers who delve more deeply into an understanding of these personality types will be able to construct much stronger characters, and certainly much of her analysis seems well-grounded.
Article comments
1 - DrPat
"Tools is tools." This sounds like a useful toolbox for a fiction writer, whether or not one agrees with the philosophy that informed every tool's development.
2 - Rodney Welch
I find this a very inspring post, although not for the reason you might think. The very idea that there's a creature out there named Marisa D'vari, hawking something called a More Personality System, makes me want to run like hell in the opposite direction. It sounds like a very, very rich subject for parody -- like something you'd see in one of Bruce Wagner's Hollywood novels, except that it's a little too ludicrous to be believed. Alas, given the usual shit churned out by Hollywood, why should it? We live in an age of manufactured, pre-processed art, and have for quite some time.
3 - Bill Wallo
Dr. Pat: I tend to agree with you. And what's more, a good craftsman never blames his tools. ;)
Rodney: I thought about making the observation in the post that in terms of characters, one could do worse than to study D'Vari herself. As for your final observation, after reading Heath and Potter's Nation of Rebels, I am far less inclined to worry about "manufactured, pre-processed art" and more likely to look for that which I enjoy. Such charges are frequently a disguised form of social elitism (no accusations regarding present company, of course), and I have decided to try and refrain from belitting "mass society" given the fact that in doing so I may well be guilty of attempting to establish a measure of social distinction for myself by signaling my separation from the "herd of sheep" when in point of fact, we're all sheep headed in one direction or another.
4 - Rodney Welch
That sounds hopeless and despairing and cynical. Merely refusing to follow in lockstep behind the Marisa D'varis of the world does not make you an elitist. It reminds you that you are an individual. Today's motto: write, think read and watch in such a way as to offend, upset, frighten and confuse the tiny world of Marisa D'vari and its resident termites.
5 - Bill Wallo
Actually, I don't regard it as hopeless, despairing, OR cynical. Instead, it largely frees one of any obligation to follow the cultural elites who like to define artistic expression in a particular way.
Having grown up in an artistic environment and knowing many, many people who play the "art game" as a way to obtain social status and define themselves in distinction to the "uncultured" sheep of the world, I am free to recognize the merits of whatever I wish - be it Spider-man instead of Sideways or Battlestar Galactica instead of House or The West Wing.
It is certainly possible to poke a bit of fun at D'Vari (hey, I thought I did a time or two in the post itself). And the idea of a trademarked "personality system" is certainly problematic if you regard it as a definitive formula for writing (something which I do have a serious problem with). By and large, however, she does not advocate a specific "formula" for writing as much as she believes writers ought to understand personality "typing" in working on their characters. I think that's a reasonable approach, whatever the rest of her contentions.
6 - DrPat
Perhaps Rodney is mistaking the process of creating fictional characters with the practice of typing real people, Bill.
I think it's fair to use the tools develop to categorize people (however much you diasgree with personality typing, as I said) to make your fictional creations more believable, more like someone you would meet outside the pages of a book.
7 - Pat Cummings
This book review has been selected for Advance.net. You’ll be able to find this and other Blog Critics reviews at such places as Cleveland.com’s Book Reviews column.
8 - Elvira Black
Bill: I agree with you wholeheartedly about the "art game" and cultural elitism. I have the feeling that Rodney has not read the book itself (admittedly, neither have I) but his snap judgment seems a tad too knee-jerkingly resentful, even downright nasty, to seem objectively valid. Conversely, this review made me inclined to believe that this book would prove to be a fascinating and useful read indeed.
9 - Rodney Welch
My point, DrPat and Elvira "I'll Believe Anything" Black, is that shit like this is for unimaginative people who write dull, paint-by-numbers movies. If that describes you, by all means use it.
10 - Jan Christensen
The whole premise of this book is that people are consistent to type. How boring that would be! My main complaint lately with much fiction writing is that the characters never do surprise me, and that there is no spark in the writing. Although I believe in certain "rules" for writing, such as not a lot of switching of POV and using good grammar, for example, I find books and articles such as this which suggest a formulaic approach might dampen down the beginning (or even the more experienced) writer's ability to put imagination in the piece. So, although this might be an interesting excercise to do with characters, I'd be very careful doing so as not to lose spontaneity and spark.
11 - Neil Schell
If you haven't read the book, how can you possibly pass judgement on it?
Creative minds use whatever sparks them. I agree with your viewpoint of formulae writing but if you haven't read the book you really have no right to criticize. Read it first. Then tell us what you think.